The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

D4s... I hate this

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I think you are making my point for me … and one of my points was that these cameras reign supreme for what they were intended to do.

However, photographers like Guy have diverse needs, and he has already clearly explained that resolution is a necessary party of his "delivery" on many jobs. While he can use his experience to make an A7R camera work in most, if not all circumstances, he can't make a 16 meg camera act like a 36 meg one.

Funny thing, all those intense action, decisive moments you mentioned used be caught, and very well, with a buffer of 36 … per roll :rolleyes: … not to mention the lack of modern Lithium batteries. Using cameras that are snail slow compared to what we have now.

One does wonder how they did it.

Perhaps they did it with skill, knowledge of the subject, and anticipation.:facesmack:

I watch my less experienced second shooters scramble and fluster, and still miss shots all the time with their wonder cams (including "Pro" models in past). They have yet to hone their skills of anticipation and observation … and some of them never do, no matter what I may teach them … probably because it is part of what we call talent.


- Marc

Marc summed this up nicely and what really was my point. It's all about skill, you can give a great photographer nothing and he will come home with the goods and in the film days before motor drives, Polaroid backs and all that tech that exist today amazing sports images where being made with gear that people stick there nose at today.

I know 11 Fps sounds incredible but that does not mean you got the decisive moment you still need skill for that. This was my point.


This reminds me of being in Acadia National park shooting a light house. There where at least 30 shooters on hand and I'm hearing motor drives whirling on something that has not moved in 100 years. I turned to our workshop folks and we all about pissed on ourselves laughing so hard. Really you need 11 Fps second to shoot a sunrise. Lol
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Marc summed this up nicely and what really was my point. It's all about skill, you can give a great photographer nothing and he will come home with the goods and in the film days before motor drives, Polaroid backs and all that tech that exist today amazing sports images where being made with gear that people stick there nose at today.

I know 11 Fps sounds incredible but that does not mean you got the decisive moment you still need skill for that. This was my point.


This reminds me of being in Acadia National park shooting a light house. There where at least 30 shooters on hand and I'm hearing motor drives whirling on something that has not moved in 100 years. I turned to our workshop folks and we all about pissed on ourselves laughing so hard. Really you need 11 Fps second to shoot a sunrise. Lol
I used to shoot a lot of ice hockey on film using an F3HP.
The fps is not the point, although the bird shooters I know think it is.
For me it is the optical viewfinder and the low latency for shutter press.
I used to use two cameras, one shooting, one being reloaded. We would get assigned out portholes by the arena, and there we stood poking our lenses out through the holes in the glass.
We watched the play through the viewfinder, and yes tried to anticipate the action. Following the puck was paramount and pressing the button at just the right time was important for the money-shot. Some shot with motor drives, and usually ran them full tilt when the action was close to the net. There is only about 2 tenths of a second between when the shot starts and when it bounces off the goaltender's chest.
Today, I look at what folks do with their fast rate bodies and it is sort of variable rate. A whole lot is one frame at a time, but when a shot looks like it is being set-up the practice seems to be to take one a touch early but then to keep the button pushed down at max rate because the play of the game can be so unpredictable. What folks say today is that about half of the keepers happen when planned, about half taken somewhere during the burst.
In these games, there are usually 4-6 shooters working the portholes and the competition amongst them is just as fierce as what is happening on the ice.

There is a whole lot of slow-action shooting where fps makes absolutely no difference. Runway, almost all studio other than the occasional strange setup that might need extreme speed (bullets in flight, for example but those are usually one shot per take), and certainly lighthouses.
But there are uses for fps, and uses for optical viewfinders.
Remember that this thread was all about the D4s announcement and the Sony did not/should not have been introduced as a topic until someone (and I know who:p) did.
-bob
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I never brought up the Sony in this thread and that was the point. But as far as optical and EVF there are many takes on that and for me the EVF especially the Sonys it's all about focusing and confirmation. Unfortunately Bob any modern camera absolutely sucks with a optical finder with AF glass with manual focusing sucks dick. Its horrible the focusing screens and the lack on AF glass to have any feel at all manual focusing. That green dot means really nothing but a focus peak is just more helpful to me.from someone that sometimes needs AF but hates having to rely on it. I'm finding for my older eyes the EVF helps me better with focus peaking , zooming all INSIDE the finder. The Nikons don't do that in the finder. It's why I switched. BOB you may know how to use a 11fps camera to shoot action but a very large chunk of people do not but just lay on the horn. You don't like the EVF we get that but for me its much better for me to nail, Confirm, view and work with in finder without taking my eye from the eyecup. I can deal with the downside of EVF . Its a change that I accepted. Not everyone has too. But the crap comments Bob was totally unfair and out of place. Sorry I flat out disagree with it in total. You obviously think Sonys suck. Great but I think Nikon is a day late and a dollar short at giving me what I want to use. It doesn't suck just outdated for me. I'm easily getting everything done with no issues at all it that area.

With that I'm out of this conversation.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I never brought up the Sony in this thread and that was the point. But as far as optical and EVF there are many takes on that and for me the EVF especially the Sonys it's all about focusing and confirmation. Unfortunately Bob any modern camera absolutely sucks with a optical finder with AF glass with manual focusing sucks dick. Its horrible the focusing screens and the lack on AF glass to have any feel at all manual focusing. That green dot means really nothing but a focus peak is just more helpful to me.from someone that sometimes needs AF but hates having to rely on it. I'm finding for my older eyes the EVF helps me better with focus peaking , zooming all INSIDE the finder. The Nikons don't do that in the finder. It's why I switched. BOB you may know how to use a 11fps camera to shoot action but a very large chunk of people do not but just lay on the horn. You don't like the EVF we get that but for me its much better for me to nail, Confirm, view and work with in finder without taking my eye from the eyecup. I can deal with the downside of EVF . Its a change that I accepted. Not everyone has too. But the crap comments Bob was totally unfair and out of place. Sorry I flat out disagree with it in total. You obviously think Sonys suck. Great but I think Nikon is a day late and a dollar short at giving me what I want to use. It doesn't suck just outdated for me. I'm easily getting everything done with no issues at all it that area.

With that I'm out of this conversation.
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/570443-post14.html there is started.

No, I don't think that the Sony sucks,
I do think it sucks trying to do those things that the D4s was designed for.
If I had a pile of R lenses I would be all over that camera.
We used to do pretty well on a ground glass, and yes focus peaking is cool, just that it sacrifices the optical viewfinder.
A lot of the video folks today don't use any sort of focusing assist at all through the viewfinder. That is the job of the focus puller who does not even have a monitor view.
anyway, lets keep this thread on the nikon.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Agree its a Nikon thread. Certainly would not mind having the D4 though as I honestly think this sensor on it and the DF cam have a nice look to it regardless of speed stuff.
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
D4s ... I hate this ... (uh-oh)


In my humble opinion we ought to be sufficiently grown-up to deal with a conversation containing different brands, different formats, different types of gear,
even different types of viewfinders (the most crucial part of a camera if you ask me).

If all these comparisons and preferences are declared taboo to discuss I fear the conversation will slowly be replaced by silence :sleep006:

By the way I actually think Jack was the first to mention the new innovative and trendy Sony A alternative in this Nikon D4s thread, see post # 4,
quickly followed by Joe in post # 7, and with many others following - which is totally all right with me despite my own countless F-mount tattoos .-)

Just my 0.02
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Nice fairy tale that all photographers like to foist off as the truth. Unfortunately, a unique signature alone isn't enough in the wedding industry … it has to be one that panders to the tastes of the consuming public … and is fueled more by contacts, marketing and PR presence … those resistant to these market pressures usually had a vast client list, and a well oiled machine prior to the industry falling off the cliff some years ago.

I've watched some pretty unique shooters take the roller-coaster ride up and then free fall not long afterwards. As the saying goes … "He got so popular, no one goes there anymore".

As I said, there are stars and those that mimic them serving a small cross section of lurcative weddings, but the fact of the matter is that there are fewer weddings now, and those getting married are older and tend to pay for their own wedding.

I know a huge amount of wedding and portrait shooters that are very successful as a business and not one of them is all that unique.

Not saying one shouldn't try … but trying doesn't assure anything IF what and how you see the world doesn't have a wide appeal for a lot of different people.

- Marc
I agree that marketing and contacts play a big part in success, but as you say, "pandering to the consuming public", especially today is driven by economics. The digital camera revolution has spurred innovation because the learning curve is well...there is no learning curve! Economics have put higher end digital capture in the hands of anyone. Weddings are a mix of what I consider to be a photographers dream. You've got high fashion, mood swings, and alcohol, if you take your time and be creative, you can assure your next assignment will come from this job because you were creative and original. A cynical approach will certainly not help ones portfolio.


As a side note the D4 is primarily for news organizations/sport shooters that need the photos uploaded for press release via the internet. It's an amazing camera, whose 16mp is perfect for today's lenses.
 
Last edited:

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I'm a little surprised by some of the comments and language. I thought you couldn't use derogatory comments or flat out offensive words. Where's the exchange of ideas and objectivity? When brand loyalty trumps any objective insights or criticism then this just becomes irrelevant.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
...surprised by some of the comments and language...offensive words. Where's the exchange of ideas and objectivity?

Could not agree more...

Its a box with a lens and shutter...for Heaven's sake....

Seems to be a trend today that we emphasize things with comments that we later regret...what works in the barrio may not it the forum.

The difficulty with the written word is that it is like the Energizer Bunny....lasts and lasts.....hard to retract without an admission of .... regret/loss/responsibility....

So here is my take...D4s is the safe route for Nikon...nothing risked little gained.

Maybe better AF ... we will know in a day or two after it hits the steet.

Really just a Df with Kevlar clothing....and a better battery.

As Marc has commented so many times...horses for courses!

I had a D3 D3s now a Df ... no interest in massive FPS nor a bit faster AF....

Between my Leica Monochrom, M-E, Sony A7R, Nikon Df and an expectant Fuji X-T1 not to mention the Blackmagic Pocket....I should have all the bases covered. So the real question is why do I not feel like I have the optimum camera?

Nothing is perfect...adjust expectations and maximize the potential of the existent....

Regards,

Bob
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
That's because you don't have an F6 yet :ROTFL:
Actually had two...just hate scanning.....did I say HATE?

After scanning every photo I took over 20+ years with Nikon and Imacon scanners .... dusting and post process...I have a severe aversion to film and scans.....but love the output.

Nice camera but really AA's?

When I have an unlimited amount of time I may reconsider but for now the Df
comes close....

Bob
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Actually had two...just hate scanning.....did I say HATE?

After scanning every photo I took over 20+ years with Nikon and Imacon scanners .... dusting and post process...I have a severe aversion to film and scans.....but love the output.

Nice camera but really AA's?

When I have an unlimited amount of time I may reconsider but for now the Df
comes close....

Bob
I'm joking of course, but it is very nice. I was on a family outing yesterday, and decided to take a Nikon camera instead of something smaller. After I gave away the D80, there is really only one Nikon body for such occasions. Everything else feels large and clumsy (I don't have anything smaller than the D300). So I grabbed the F6 and one roll of XP2 and one Ektar 100.

Exactly for the reason you mention, I have not scanned all my old photos, just those I need (they are nicely cataloged), so I still don't mind scanning a few rolls every month or so :)
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'm joking of course, but it is very nice. I was on a family outing yesterday, and decided to take a Nikon camera instead of something smaller. After I gave away the D80, there is really only one Nikon body for such occasions. Everything else feels large and clumsy (I don't have anything smaller than the D300). So I grabbed the F6 and one roll of XP2 and one Ektar 100.

Exactly for the reason you mention, I have not scanned all my old photos, just those I need (they are nicely cataloged), so I still don't mind scanning a few rolls every month or so :)
Jorgen,

Film scans really are gorgeous...just so time consuming!

The F6 was amazing in that Nikon bothered to produce it ... a bit too late and too expensive for the masses.

Bob
 

bensonga

Well-known member
And with very clean used F6s selling for ~1200 USD now, they are actually quite affordable. :D

Gary
 

RVB

Member
I don't get all the frizzle-frazzel.

Professionals shooting high action images for a living, (and all those mimicking them), have their camera. If there wasn't a demand and a need, they wouldn't make the things any more. When some smaller camera delivers the same performance for 1/2 the price, they will go bye-bye.

Pros like Guy, and his versatile applications, need more image than these cameras deliver. No pro wants to pay $6,500 for a camera they use occasionally … at least, not anymore. The economy saw to that.

@ Mat: the A7/A7r isn't limited to adapting legacy glass or other brands to the Sonys. The A7/A7R is a Sony product and all the Sony A mounts work on them with the SLT dual AF adapter … so the lens selection is not small, nor particularly limiting.

Those that think the Pro tanks are suitable wedding and event cameras haven't been paying attention. NO ONE (except a few die-hards) wants to drag around a bag of bricks for 7 to 10 hours anymore … regardless of "balance". The 5D pounded the first nail in that coffin.

When the next gen EVF and an AF system like the A6000 are put into the next wave FFs … then the game will be afoot.

Meanwhile, camera's like the D4 reign supreme for what they were intended.

- Marc
Marc,do you think that the weight of these pro bodies (Which I am a fan of.. ) could be lowered with new materials?

I wonder if carbon fibre or composite plastics could lower the weight and costs?I would have no doubt that strength and durability would be no issue..

Rob
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
The problem with composites is the impact resistance. Bang it against something hard, and they crack. Metal gets a dent which most of the time doesn't affect functionality.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc,do you think that the weight of these pro bodies (Which I am a fan of.. ) could be lowered with new materials?

I wonder if carbon fibre or composite plastics could lower the weight and costs?I would have no doubt that strength and durability would be no issue..

Rob
Probably a decent amount of weight savings could be realized with a lighter battery … I have been amazed by Leica's relatively small, light weight S2 lithium battery which never seems to run low.

They probably could trim the size a bit here and there … keep the bigness, just a bit less of it :)

- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Not sure it is a Nikon priority to try and lower size and weight on a D4 style camera . A D800 yes but the D4 is usually rigged up with big glass anyway so maybe not a big concern plus they may like keeping the robustness of it. I can understand that for sure. It's also designed at least in theory to take a lot of abuse of a PJ. In my days shooting for the Phoenix Suns I literally would just throw a cam to the floor and grab the second body with another lens on it. Basketball is pretty fast paced and you really need two different lenses at all times. Sitting under the basket was pretty close to the action underneath. So a good wide helps but the need for a 200 f2 or longer always was a need as well and cams just flew all over the place. Yes I was a floor huger for awhile there. Killed your back. Lol
 

D&A

Well-known member
Guy said--->>>"Concert shooter this would be a interesting choice as the D4 is one but we have lessor value cams that can get that high ISO stuff so for that type of shooter it maybe a tougher decision.<<<

You nailed it! For some concert shooters (and types of performances), there is a sort of a hole and lack of a high ISO performing camera that also has a top frame rate. At least 24mp or more is needed for large format printed promotional material but a frame rate at least as fast as a D3s is required to adequately capture decisive moments of fast moving performers flying across the stage (at least in terms of whats expected to be captured with todays technology). In the Nikon camp, there really is no DSLR that meets this requirement...unless a 24mp D4 body was introduced. For certain applications, there can be a significant difference between having 16mp and at least 24mp, and often at times 16mp didn't cut it. Even 24mp is not exactly a leap but every bit helps. The D600 and it's limited spread of AF sensors as well as it's frame rate barely cut it (and I emphasize barely). It all depends on what the camera is being used for that will determine which model if any, fit the bill properly. If one doesn't exist, one then for better or worse has to make what's available work.

Dave (D&A)
 
Top